Thread: "rain cover"
View Single Post
Old 12-10-2012, 01:12 AM   #170 (permalink)
Justus
E-Tac Operator =
 
Justus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocsMachine View Post
-Second off, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV.
I'm late getting back to this, but I've been doing other things this weekend. Doc, I honestly mean no disrespect, but you're still comprehending that case completely wrong. I had a long response typed out explaining it all, but I scrapped it due to the unnecessary length and the fact that some people apparently think that spirited discussion on a topic where disagreement exists is the same as beating a dead horse. Go figure.

But I still think I can sum it up in 4 or 5 brief points:

1. Paintball guns are not firearms. They've been defined differently. See ATF Rul.2005-4 (paintball gun, which uses compressed air to expel a projectile, is not a “firearm” under the statute) << direct quote from the Crooker decision.

2. The current statute prohibits the possession of a firearm silencer, specifically defined. There is no statute prohibiting the use or possession of a paintball gun silencer. If I'm wrong, then quote me the US Code section and I'll apologize.

3. Without a statute specifically prohibiting its possession, a paintball gun silencer is no more illegal than a car muffler. (Or, the examples that the Crooker Court liked to use were a plastic soda bottle or a potato).

4. The Government attempted to use the statute prohibiting possession of a firearm silencer against Michael Crooker for possession of a paintball gun silencer, but on appeal the Court said 'no, the current statute doesn't apply unless the device can be adapted to be used on a firearm and the Government can prove that Crooker intended for it to be adapted for use in silencing a firearm.' Because the Government could only show that the device could be adapted, but not that Crooker intended for it to be adapted for firearm use, Crooker was acquitted. (The part of the statute requiring intent for firearm use is only necessary when the device requires adaptation for use on a firearm. Possession of commercially manufactured firearm silencers do not require the showing of intent to use.)

5. This analysis is coming from someone who can't say the same thing as you did, quoted above. And no, I'm not a TV actor. And none of what I post on a paintball forum is to be construed as any form of legal advice.
__________________
My Feedback

Last edited by Justus; 12-10-2012 at 01:21 AM.
Justus is offline   Reply With Quote